Keeping the two ethnic groups at loggerheads. Reminds me of the American Civil War when Irish-led anti-war riots broke out in New York, helping to trigger the Gettysberg speech since northern Whites increasingly did not want to become soldiers!Richard Stanley said:In the 1920s(?), I believe, a Harvard study was undertaken to determine why Blacks and the Irish were so criminally oriented, in relative terms. The conclusion, apparently based upon Romantic Movement 'feelings' and little else, determined that the Irish could be successfully integrated into 'proper' (white) American society if certain programs were provided to them, but that these programs would not work for Blacks. So the programs were solely instituted for the Irish and today nobody thinks twice, other than the occasional ethnic joke, more often self-deprecating. While I have not studied what these programs consisted of, I believe they were cultural reframing programs.
Too right! And the (big C) Cultural effect is overwhelmingly powerful since it acts on us even in our pre-lingual state and in subtle ways even when we are adults. In the "Dialectic of Enlightenment" A&H (my abbreviation for Adorno & Horkheimer, as opposed to AH - Adolf Hitler) attack the Enlightenment, but in general for the wrong reasons! My attack on the Enlightenment is based on a quite different approach, even though there are some parallels.Richard Stanley said:So what you, Horkheimer, Adorno and the others are saying is that Culture, writ large and small, is what 'frames' peoples' POV's and social behaviors. Culture, of which Religion is a subset, is a Tool. A Tool which can be used for good or bad purposes, depending on the beholder of the Tool.
I only joined the website because I had guessed your next sentence from the postings, partly too from hearing Joe's diatribes with Jan Irvin.
This is exactly the fundamental issue - in that the fundamental principles for an effective and just philosophy for running the world simply do not exist.Richard Stanley said:Jerry and I have been remiss in also not informing you earlier that we have issues with the use of the terms 'Right' and 'Left'. Especially if someone is advancing a still yet vague notion of an enlightened fascism. The terms are too freighted over time to allow a clear communication of meaning.
Yesterday's Liberal is today's Conservative, and this is important when considering that the OG Left was breaking away from Monarchism. So today, when discussing on a sliding scale, when one mentions the Right or a Conservative, is one talking about a Monarchist, a CryptoMonarchist, a Fascist, or an OG Liberal?
I might bring in Martin Heidegger (the supposed evil crypto-Nazi) at this point, since when in April, just before signing up for your website, I finally finished reading the translation of his work (Heraclitus: The Inception of Occidental Thinking and Heraclitus' Doctrine of the Logos, Bloomsbury Academic, London 2018). There I at last understood his philosophy when I realized what he meant by "presumptuous mismeasurement" in place of "insolence" as the translation for hubris in Diels Fragment 43 of Heraclitus; conversely I also could now understand where he had gone wrong as well. In an interview decades after he wrote this work Heidegger stated that "only a god could save us now"; but today however armed with his original insights - since he could not see how to apply his discovery - I can readily solve his conundrum and solve the question of postmodernity.
a massively convoluted article by Marxist Loren Goldner (and Tony Smith's adjacent similar article) attacking postmodern concerns (the original text had cartoons, found in my photocopy issued by said Marxist party, the funniest being of Levi-Strauss, Barthes and Lacan dressed as natives sitting in the jungle listening to a native-dressed Foucault). Goldner mentioned Heidegger negatively, but his work finally convinced me to be his opponent, to ditch popular Marxist thought by 1994, leading to my expulsion from a Marxist Party for opposing their actions against now obsolete Fascist grouplets as counterproductive. Only after this did I gradually come to understand Nietzsche and, only this year, Heidegger.
How true, shell corporations that survive by the support of hollow philosophical shells and the shills that promote them.Richard Stanley said:Some on the contemporary American Right may indeed be correct that certain programs of the latter decades, tailored to the poor (of all groups), have had a deleterious effect on such as Blacks and others. And maybe this was by design. That said, it was government spending for WWII and later, that created the wider American middle class, including many Blacks. Prior to this time was the massive financial inequities across all groups as remnants of the Robber Baron period.
Today, the contemporary Right (whoever they all are) complain about too many burdens upon the taxpayers, almost always forgetting that their legal heroes created the ability of those who CAN, to squirrel their financial nuts away in various hiding places. It use to be tax havens, and now it is almost exclusively via the use of shell corporations.